Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

The New Coffee Room

  1. TNCR
  2. General Discussion
  3. The Alzheimer's Amyloidosis Fraud

The Alzheimer's Amyloidosis Fraud

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Discussion
5 Posts 4 Posters 76 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • George KG Offline
    George KG Offline
    George K
    wrote on last edited by
    #1

    https://www.science.org/content/article/researchers-plan-retract-landmark-alzheimers-paper-containing-doctored-images

    Authors of a landmark Alzheimer’s disease research paper published in Nature in 2006 have agreed to retract the study in response to allegations of image manipulation. University of Minnesota (UMN) Twin Cities neuroscientist Karen Ashe, the paper’s senior author, acknowledged in a post on the journal discussion site PubPeer that the paper contains doctored images. The study has been cited nearly 2500 times, and would be the most cited paper ever to be retracted, according to Retraction Watch data.

    “Although I had no knowledge of any image manipulations in the published paper until it was brought to my attention two years ago,” Ashe wrote on PubPeer, “it is clear that several of the figures in Lesné et al. (2006) have been manipulated … for which I as the senior and corresponding author take ultimate responsibility.”

    After initially arguing the paper’s problems could be addressed with a correction, Ashe said in another post last week that all of the authors had agreed to a retraction—with the exception of its first author, UMN neuro-
>scientist Sylvain Lesné, a protégé of Ashe’s who was the focus of a 2022 investigation by Science. A Nature spokesperson would not comment on the journal’s plans.

    “It’s unfortunate that it has taken 
>2 years to make the decision to retract,” says Donna Wilcock, an Indiana University neuroscientist and editor of the journal Alzheimer’s & Dementia. “The evidence of manipulation was overwhelming.”

    The 2006 paper suggested an amyloid beta (Aβ) protein called Aβ56 could cause Alzheimer’s. Aβ proteins have long been linked to the disease. The authors reported that Aβ56 was present in mice genetically engineered to develop an Alzheimer’s-like condition, and that it built up in step with their cognitive decline. The team also reported memory deficits in rats injected with Aβ*56.

    For years researchers had tried to improve Alzheimer’s outcomes by stripping amyloid proteins from the brain, but the experimental drugs all failed. Aβ*56 seemed to offer a more specific and promising therapeutic target, and many embraced the finding. Funding for related work rose sharply.

    But the Science investigation revealed evidence that the Nature paper and numerous others co-authored by Lesné, some listing Ashe as senior author, appeared to use manipulated data. After the story was published, leading scientists who had cited the paper to support their own experiments questioned whether Aβ*56 could be reliably detected and purified as described by Lesné and Ashe—or even existed. Some said the problems in that paper and others supported fresh doubts about the dominant hypothesis that amyloid drives Alzheimer’s. Others maintained that the hypothesis remains viable.

    https://pubpeer.com/publications/8FF7E6996524B73ACB4A9EF5C0AACF

    Were there other papers supporting the amyloid hypothesis?

    I dunno.

    "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

    The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

    CopperC 1 Reply Last reply
    • jon-nycJ Offline
      jon-nycJ Offline
      jon-nyc
      wrote on last edited by
      #2

      So criminal. All those researchers wasting their time while people die waiting.

      "You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from."
      -Cormac McCarthy

      George KG 1 Reply Last reply
      • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

        So criminal. All those researchers wasting their time while people die waiting.

        George KG Offline
        George KG Offline
        George K
        wrote on last edited by
        #3

        @jon-nyc said in The Alzheimer's Amyloidosis Fraud:

        So criminal. All those researchers wasting their time while people die waiting.

        I mentioned this story to Mrs. George. She said that they should be locked up.

        Actually, other than the shame of academic fraud for a while, what consequences will there be?

        "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

        The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

        1 Reply Last reply
        • MikM Offline
          MikM Offline
          Mik
          wrote on last edited by
          #4

          Trust the science.

          “I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill

          1 Reply Last reply
          • George KG George K

            https://www.science.org/content/article/researchers-plan-retract-landmark-alzheimers-paper-containing-doctored-images

            Authors of a landmark Alzheimer’s disease research paper published in Nature in 2006 have agreed to retract the study in response to allegations of image manipulation. University of Minnesota (UMN) Twin Cities neuroscientist Karen Ashe, the paper’s senior author, acknowledged in a post on the journal discussion site PubPeer that the paper contains doctored images. The study has been cited nearly 2500 times, and would be the most cited paper ever to be retracted, according to Retraction Watch data.

            “Although I had no knowledge of any image manipulations in the published paper until it was brought to my attention two years ago,” Ashe wrote on PubPeer, “it is clear that several of the figures in Lesné et al. (2006) have been manipulated … for which I as the senior and corresponding author take ultimate responsibility.”

            After initially arguing the paper’s problems could be addressed with a correction, Ashe said in another post last week that all of the authors had agreed to a retraction—with the exception of its first author, UMN neuro-
>scientist Sylvain Lesné, a protégé of Ashe’s who was the focus of a 2022 investigation by Science. A Nature spokesperson would not comment on the journal’s plans.

            “It’s unfortunate that it has taken 
>2 years to make the decision to retract,” says Donna Wilcock, an Indiana University neuroscientist and editor of the journal Alzheimer’s & Dementia. “The evidence of manipulation was overwhelming.”

            The 2006 paper suggested an amyloid beta (Aβ) protein called Aβ56 could cause Alzheimer’s. Aβ proteins have long been linked to the disease. The authors reported that Aβ56 was present in mice genetically engineered to develop an Alzheimer’s-like condition, and that it built up in step with their cognitive decline. The team also reported memory deficits in rats injected with Aβ*56.

            For years researchers had tried to improve Alzheimer’s outcomes by stripping amyloid proteins from the brain, but the experimental drugs all failed. Aβ*56 seemed to offer a more specific and promising therapeutic target, and many embraced the finding. Funding for related work rose sharply.

            But the Science investigation revealed evidence that the Nature paper and numerous others co-authored by Lesné, some listing Ashe as senior author, appeared to use manipulated data. After the story was published, leading scientists who had cited the paper to support their own experiments questioned whether Aβ*56 could be reliably detected and purified as described by Lesné and Ashe—or even existed. Some said the problems in that paper and others supported fresh doubts about the dominant hypothesis that amyloid drives Alzheimer’s. Others maintained that the hypothesis remains viable.

            https://pubpeer.com/publications/8FF7E6996524B73ACB4A9EF5C0AACF

            Were there other papers supporting the amyloid hypothesis?

            I dunno.

            CopperC Offline
            CopperC Offline
            Copper
            wrote on last edited by
            #5

            @George-K said in The Alzheimer's Amyloidosis Fraud:

            Retraction Watch data

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction_Watch

            Retraction Watch is a blog that reports on retractions of scientific papers and on related topics.

            They have a 9-person staff.

            There must be a lot of retractions.

            1 Reply Last reply
            Reply
            • Reply as topic
            Log in to reply
            • Oldest to Newest
            • Newest to Oldest
            • Most Votes


            • Login

            • Don't have an account? Register

            • Login or register to search.
            • First post
              Last post
            0
            • Categories
            • Recent
            • Tags
            • Popular
            • Users
            • Groups